US 5270773

I'll search for this specific patent number and any associated litigation or 2026 CAFC activity.

Search methodology and limitations (stated up front)

I ran targeted queries against live web indexes for the exact number string "5270773" paired with patent/USPTO and CAFC/Federal Circuit terms. I do not have direct authenticated access to USPTO Patent Center, the USPTO assignment/PTAB APIs, or PACER/CAFC docket systems. What follows is grounded in (a) the authoritative full text of the patent supplied to me, and (b) publicly indexed mirrors (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, EveryPatent, Justia) and general 2026 Federal Circuit roundups that surfaced in search. Where I could not confirm something authoritatively, I say so.

Two literal-ID cautions:

1. Search results also return JP5270773B2 (Japanese Patent No. 5270773, "トリガースイッチ" / Trigger Switch, S-S Tech Co., registered 2013-05-17). That is an unrelated Japanese patent that merely shares the digit string. It is not a family member of US 5,270,773 and must not be conflated with it.
2. Search result snippets also surfaced unrelated US applications/publications containing the characters "5270773" as a citation entry (e.g., US 8,448,254 citing "5270773 | December 14, 1993 | Sklut et al."). Those are citations to this patent, not this patent.

---

Bibliographic data — US 5,270,773 A

Cited prior art (as listed by the patent)

US 4,414,579 (IBM); US 4,437,660 (Datapoint); US 4,470,356 (Datapoint, "printer output bin lock box"); US 4,561,765 (Canon); US 4,655,582 (Sharp); JP S61-140435 (Sharp); EP 0 241 273 A2 (Xerox, "Limited access reproducing machine bins"); JP S64-31579 (Mazda); US 5,034,770 (Xerox, "Job integrity and security apparatus"); US 5,045,881 (Xerox, "System for segregating purge sheets and continued printing"); US 5,098,074 (Xerox, "Finishing apparatus"). Non-patent citations: Bacon et al., IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 18, No. 6, Nov. 1975, pp. 1747–1748; Bolle et al., "Access Controlled Copier," U.S. Defensive Publication No. T102,102 (Aug. 3, 1982).

Abstract (verbatim)

"An image producing device such as a copier or a printer includes sensors for determining the presence of output from a previous job in the paper path or a finishing device. A particular operator's access rights are determined through a login process. Depending on the operator's access level, i.e., authority to view sensitive documents, the image producing device enables a purge of the existing sensitive documents or electronic images or prevents operation until an authorized operator initiates a purge."

---

The invention in brief

The patent addresses a specific security hole in networked/high-volume copiers and printers: machines routinely and silently "purge" leftover sheets from a prior job (from duplex/intermediate trays, finisher stations, or after a jam) so the next job can run. If the prior job was sensitive, that automatic purge can physically deposit someone else's confidential output where an unauthorized operator can pick it up. The patent's fix is to make purge permission-gated by operator login credentials, and to log operators who walk away without clearing waste.

Three concepts recur: (1) sensor-detected waste in the paper path blocks cycle-up; (2) only an operator whose access code carries purge rights may clear it — otherwise a higher-authority operator (e.g., a system administrator) must log in; (3) purge destinations are controlled (same output destination as the operator's own job, a locked internal waste box 16, or a personal locked bin 12).

---

Independent claims — plain-language overview

There are five independent claims: 1, 12, 21, 22, and 23.

Claim 1 — Independent apparatus claim

An apparatus for preventing unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information in an image producing device, comprising four elements:

1. Means for determining a first operator's access rights (i.e., an access level from login credentials).
2. Sensing means for sensing whether output from a previous job is still present in the machine.
3. Means for preventing operation of the machine, responsive to both the sensor signal and that operator's access level.
4. Means for inhibiting clearing of the previous job's output from the machine if the operator's access level is below a predetermined level.

In plain terms: a copier/printer that won't run, and won't let the leftover output be cleared away, when a low-privilege user is logged in and a prior job's waste is still inside.

Claim 12 — Independent method claim

Same four-step logic as claim 1, but tied specifically to the paper path and phrased as method steps: determine access rights → sense prior-job output in the paper path → prevent operation if output is present and access level is below the predetermined level → inhibit clearing of that output if the access level is below the predetermined level.

In plain terms: the method counterpart to claim 1, limited to physical sheets in the paper path.

Claim 21 — Independent method claim (electronic image variant)

Determining an operator's access rights → sensing whether electronic image output from a previous job is present in the device → preventing operation if such electronic output is present → inhibiting clearing of that output if the access level is below the predetermined level.

Note a drafting difference: claim 21's "preventing operation" step is not conditioned on the access level (it triggers merely on presence of electronic output), whereas in claims 1 and 12 the preventing step is explicitly tied to both the sensor signal and the access level. Claim 21 therefore covers electronic/print-buffer data left from a prior job, extending the concept beyond jammed paper — consistent with the specification's references to XEROX 4050-family print-buffer password protection and to "sensitive documents or electronic images."

Claim 22 — Independent apparatus claim (multiple output bins)

An apparatus for an image producing device having a plurality of output bins, comprising: means for determining operator identification information; means for determining operator access rights; means for routing output to a specific bin based on the operator's identification (personal bin assignment); sensing means for prior-job output; means for preventing operation responsive to the sensor signals and the access rights; and means for automatically purging the prior-job output responsive to those signals and rights — where the purging means directs output to an additional output bin separate from the plurality of output bins (i.e., the secure bin/waste box 16, distinct from the ordinary bins).

In plain terms: a machine with personal/locked output bins where each operator's output goes to their own bin, and where purged sensitive waste goes to a separate, restricted bin rather than to any of the regular ones.

Claim 23 — Independent method claim (multiple output bins)

The method analogue of claim 22: determine operator identification → determine access rights → direct output to a specific one of the plurality of bins based on identification → sense prior-job output → prevent operation responsive to the sensing means signals and access rights → automatically purge the prior-job output to a separate additional bin.

Drafting defect worth noting: claim 23 is styled as a method ("the method comprising the steps of") but its final wherein clause uses apparatus language — "wherein said means for automatically purging comprises means for directing said output to an additional output bin separate from said plurality of output bins." This means-plus-function phrasing inside a method claim is an internal inconsistency on the face of the claim. It is a potential §112(b) indefiniteness vulnerability, but I have no authoritative record of any court or PTAB ever construing or invalidating these claims, and I flag it as my own reading of the claim text, not a finding from any tribunal.

Dependent claims, briefly

Claims 2–11 depend from claim 1; 13–20 depend from claim 12.

• 2: paper-path limitation on the sensing means.
• 3–5: automatic purge responsive to sensor + access level, directing output to a waste box (4) or to a finishing device (5).
• 6 / 16: recording (logging) an operator password when the operator logs off while output remains in the paper path — the anti-avoidance audit trail.
• 7–10 / 17–20: second-operator escalation ladder — enable login of a second operator if the first is blocked; auto-purge based on the second operator's access level; prevent operation while both operators are simultaneously logged in (so purge-privileged credentials aren't left active); and allow operation once the second operator logs off and the paper path is clear.
• 11: output is electronic image output stored in the device (the bridge from the paper-path claims to claim 21).
• 13–15: purge if access level is higher than the predetermined level; purge to waste box; purge to finishing device.

---

Litigation / CAFC status — what my search did and did not find

• No 2026 CAFC docket, appeal, or opinion referencing US 5,270,773 was found. My searches of 2026 Federal Circuit roundups (Gibson Dunn March 2026 update, WilmerHale March 12, 2026 Patent Watch, Patterson Sheridan weekly summaries for weeks ending April 24, 2026 and May 1, 2026, and IPWatchdog) surfaced no case involving this patent number. Given the patent expired in 2012, the absence of recent appellate activity is unsurprising and consistent.
• Caveat: because I lacked direct PACER/CAFC docket access, I cannot state affirmatively that no historical litigation ever touched this patent. What I can say is that nothing in the indexed results connects this number to a Federal Circuit docket, and the patent's own record shows only assignments/security interests (Bank One 2002, JPMorgan Chase 2003, release 2022) and no litigation events.
• Forward-citation significance: the patent is cited by a large body of later work (the Google Patents record lists ~123 citing documents, with 36 in its primary "Cited By" table), including Xerox's own US 5,544,321 and US 5,612,192-series "contextual/locational ownership of devices" family, Xerox US 5,752,697 (remote printing job confidentiality), US 5,815,764 (document job routing), Xerox US 6,666,605 (improved security in handling printer bin output), and US 7,389,985 (tray locking system). This makes it a meaningful foundational reference in the printer/copier output-security art, which is likely the more relevant "current significance" point than any live docket.

Confidence and uncertainty summary

• High confidence (from the authoritative full text): title, inventors, assignee, application number, filing/priority/issue dates, claims, specification content, cited art, and citation counts.
• High confidence (from indexed record, consistent with full text): assignment history and "Expired – Lifetime" status.
• Moderate confidence (Google Patents field only, not an official USPTO term calculation): the exact 2012-11-27 expiration date.
• Explicitly uncertain / not authoritative: whether any pre-2013 district court litigation ever involved this patent; and the §112(b) characterization of claim 23, which is my own observation about the claim text rather than any judicial or administrative determination.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 5270773. Let me run several targeted searches.

Initial searches surfaced no litigation. Let me dig into litigation-specific databases.

Let me try a few more targeted queries to be thorough.

Summary of Findings

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 5,270,773 could be identified.

After searching open-web sources that aggregate patent litigation (Google Patents' patent page, CourtListener/Free Law Project dockets, Justia, and general web queries keyed to the patent number in multiple formats), I found no district court complaint, ITC Section 337 investigation, PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM), or Federal Circuit appeal in which U.S. 5,270,773 was asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue.

What the patent itself tells us

Two structural facts are relevant to any litigation analysis:

1. It is a Xerox-owned, expired patent. The Google Patents record shows only an assignment chain (Xerox → Bank One/JPMorgan security interests as collateral, released 2022) and no litigation history. The patent expired on or about 2012-11-27, so any past assertion would now be moot and any damages window long closed.
2. It is heavily cited by later patents — 36 listed "cited by" entries and 123 in the expanded "Cited By" list, including U.S. 6,666,605 (Xerox, "Method for improved security in the handling of printer bin output," 2003). Citations in the "Cited By" list are prior-art citations, not evidence of litigation, and should not be confused with asserted patents.

False-positive notices (per the "do not auto-correct" rule)

My searches for the literal string "5270773" returned several hits that are not this patent and must not be conflated with it:

• JP 5270773 B2 — a Japanese patent (佐馬エス・テック株式会社 / Sama S-Tech) titled "Trigger switch," granted 2013-08-21. Completely unrelated subject matter (electric-tool trigger switch with dust walls). Same numeric string, different jurisdiction and different patent.
• Docket/AI holdings and other numeric collisions — e.g., Brazilian state-court case numbers (e.g., 5270773-47.2020.8.09.0010), a Lithuanian insolvency-notice number, and a CourtListener financial-disclosure investment record ID (5270773). None of these are patent litigation involving US 5,270,773.

I flag these explicitly because the identifier "5270773" is ambiguous across jurisdictions and non-patent records.

Searches that surfaced related-but-distinct Xerox litigation

I did locate several active/recent Xerox patent cases, but none asserts the '773 patent — I checked each for the patent in suit and they involve unrelated patents:

• Xerox Corp. v. X Corp., No. 2:20-cv-10754 (C.D. Cal.) — patents including U.S. 8,489,599, 7,043,475 (later held unpatentable; aff'd Xerox Corp. v. Snap Inc., Nos. 2023-1983/-1985/-1988, Fed. Cir. July 24, 2025).
• Xerox Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-10753 (C.D. Cal.) — same patent family.
• Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Xerox Corp., No. 2:21-cv-0345-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) — '149, '336, '890, '573, '966, '090 patents.
• Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., No. 1:17-cv-01803 (S.D.N.Y.) — unrelated patents.

Confidence and limitations

• High confidence that no litigation is recorded in the public sources I could reach.
• Material caveat: I was unable to directly query the Unified Patents litigation portal, PACER, Docket Navigator, or LexisNexis/Westlaw KeyCite for this session. Those are the authoritative sources for a definitive "clean" history. My conclusion rests on search-engine coverage of those databases (CourtListener, Justia, Google Patents) and is not a substitute for a KeyCite/Lexis CourtLink litigation-history report on the patent.
• The absence of hits is consistent with the patent's profile: an early-1990s Xerox internal-technology patent, expired since 2012, never commercialized as a standalone assertion asset and not part of any known NPE portfolio.

Bottom line: Based on the available evidence, there is no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 5,270,773. If a litigation-clearance opinion is required, I recommend running a formal KeyCite/Lexis CourtLink litigation-history search on the patent number and its application number 07/982,357 to confirm before relying on this.

I'll start from the canonical structured block and then verify with web search before concluding.

Let me run a few more targeted checks for any PTAB, litigation, or defensive-aggregator activity.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 5,270,773: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal reports no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and independent web verification surfaced none — so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials, and a defendant's bottom line is that this is a structurally unlitable patent, not a hardened one: it was granted 1993-12-14, expired at end of term on 2012-11-27, and no challenger ever needed to file an IPR because the patent's enforcement window closed before the AIA trial regime had a chance to bite.

---

Proceedings

None. No entry-by-entry analysis is possible, and I will not manufacture proceeding numbers.

No IPR####-#####, PGR####-#####, or CBM####-##### number exists for US 5,270,773 in the canonical structured block provided, and my searches of PTAB-related public sources returned no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, termination, or Federal Circuit appeal docketed against this patent. The absence is not an indexing gap I can paper over — it is consistent with the patent's timeline (see below).

What I verified, and what I did not find

Collision warning (important, and a real confusion risk). Searching the bare string "5270773" now surfaces three unrelated artifacts, none of which is this patent:

1. JP 5270773 B2 — an unrelated Japanese trigger switch patent (Samaes Tech K.K.; registered 2013-05-17, published 2013-08-21). Different registry, different subject matter. Do not cite it as a family member.
2. A CourtListener financial-disclosure investment record ID 5270773 (a Fidelity 500 Index Note). Irrelevant.
3. A USGS seismic-line identifier "5270773." Irrelevant.

Also not to be conflated: the Xerox–Document Dynamics ex parte reexaminations (requests filed 2020-10-19, granted 2020-12-10) concern the '772 patent, not the '773 patent, and the Xerox v. Meta / X Corp. / Snap IPR cluster concerned the '599 and '475 patents. None of that activity touches US 5,270,773.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 23 claims UNTESTED by any AIA tribunal — and constitutionally beyond reach of a live damages case. Claims 1–23 (three independent claims — 1, 12, and 21, plus claim 22 as an apparatus independent claim directed to the output-bin embodiment — with the balance dependent) stand exactly as they issued on 1993-12-14. None was canceled, none was amended, none was construed by the Board. There is no FWD to quote, so I am not going to quote one. The reason is timing, not strength: IPR became available on 2012-09-16, and this patent's 20-year term from its 1992-11-27 filing date ran out on 2012-11-27 — an approximately 10-week window in which an IPR against a live claim was even theoretically possible. The maintenance-fee record confirms the patent did not lapse early for nonpayment (4-, 8-, and 12-year fees paid; 12-year fee on 2005-04-11), so this is plain end-of-term expiration, i.e., the Google Patents legal status "Expired – Lifetime" with a 2012-11-27 anticipated expiration. PGR was never available (pre-AIA priority date); CBM would have been unavailable on the merits (an image-producing device with purge/paper-path security is not a "financial product or service").

Estoppel landscape: no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists or can arise from PTAB activity, because there has never been a petitioner. No party is barred from any prior-art ground by virtue of an IPR on this patent. That sounds favorable to a defendant, but it is mostly academic, because the controlling constraint is § 286's six-year damages lookback, not § 315. A complaint filed today (2026-09-27) could only recover for infringement occurring on or after 2026-09-27 minus six years = 2020-09-27. The patent expired 2012-11-27; infringement after expiration is legally impossible. The recoverable damages window is empty — $0 — no matter how the claims are construed. That is the single most important defensive fact in this report, and it makes an IPR an expensive way to buy a cancellation finding of no monetary consequence.

Pattern signals: none, because there is no pattern. The patent has never drawn a challenger, never been asserted in a published infringement suit that I could locate, and never been the subject of a defensive-aggregator campaign. It lives on today principally as prior art and background literature: Samsung's US 5,579,088 ("Image forming apparatus having programmable developer cartridge") discusses Sklut '773 by name as an unauthorized-access-prevention technique, and the '773 patent appears in the IDS/related-art lists of the Intarsia/Flexiworld data-management families (e.g., US 8,448,254, US 8,554,684, US 9,835,456 line). For a defendant, that citation pattern is a mild negative signal about the patent only if someone is asserting it — it means the patent's own disclosure is antecedent art to a lot of later printing/security claims, and the prosecution histories of those patents may be a richer invalidity vein than the '773 patent itself.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If a demand letter cites US 5,270,773, lead with expiration, not invalidity. Verify the expiration date yourself on the face of the patent and in the maintenance-fee record via Google Patents and USPTO Patent Center / USPTO E2E, then compute the § 286 six-year bar. If the last alleged act of infringement predates 2012-11-27 and the complaint is filed today, the damages case is worth zero and a Rule 12(b)(6) or summary-judgment posture on remedies is available independent of any PTAB outcome.
2. Do not file an IPR first. There is no FWD to lean on, no live claim to cancel that changes the money, and an IPR on an expired patent invites Phillips construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), as amended for expired patents) while consuming the very budget better spent on the § 286/expiration defense. If your opponent is asserting the patent in litigation, an IPR is at best a cost-shifting gesture; a § 315(b) time bar may also apply if you were served more than one year ago.
3. If you nevertheless want an administrative cancellation finding (e.g., to defeat a continuing royalty obligation or a license that survives expiration), the highest-value art is the patent's own cited prior art, which the examiner already treated as the field: US 4,410,579; US 4,437,660; US 4,470,356; US 4,561,765; US 4,655,582; EP 0 241 273 A2 ("Limited access reproducing machine bins," Xerox); US 5,034,770 ("Job integrity and security apparatus," Xerox); US 5,045,881 ("System for segregating purge sheets and continued printing," Xerox); US 5,098,074 ("Finishing apparatus," Xerox); plus the two non-patent citations, Bacon et al., IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 18, No. 6, Nov. 1975, pp. 1747–1748, and Bolle et al., "Access Controlled Copier," U.S. Defensive Publication No. T102,102 (1982-08-03). Note the self-art risk: several of these are Xerox's own references, which cuts both ways under § 103.
4. Re-run the ODP check at the point of any actual filing. My conclusion of "no PTAB activity" is high-confidence but not absolute — ODP ingest lags, and secondary sources (PTAB E2E at ptacts.uspto.gov, Docket Alarm, CourtListener at courtlistener.com, Unified Patents portal at portal.unifiedpatents.com) cover different windows. Practically, however, a newly filed IPR against a patent that expired in 2012 and whose last possible infringement predates 2020-09-27 would be a novelty, not a threat.

---

Confidence and sourcing caveats

• How I sourced this: the "PTAB proceedings on file" structured block (canonical, from the USPTO Open Data Portal) is the primary basis; I then ran independent web searches across PTAB/CAFC/district-court and aggregator sources. No proceeding number, judge panel, ground, or disposition is reported above because none exists to report — the operating rules prohibit fabricating proceeding numbers, and a fabricated IPR entry here would be the single most damaging error I could make in this deliverable.
• Facts I assert with high confidence: no AIA trial proceedings on US 5,270,773; grant date 1993-12-14; filing/priority date 1992-11-27; anticipated expiration 2012-11-27; legal status "Expired – Lifetime"; 23 claims; assignee Xerox Corp. (with Bank One and JPMorgan Chase security interests later released on 2022-08-22, per the assignment record).
• Facts I assert with moderate confidence: that no district court infringement assertion of this patent exists. My searches found none, but district-court complaint data is not exhaustively indexed in free sources, and a sealed or settled pre-2012 suit could exist without surfacing. If you need certainty, run a Docket Alarm / Lex Machina / Westlaw docket query on "5,270,773" before relying on this.
• A note on the "absence as signal": the usual heuristic — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs — does not apply cleanly here. The correct read of the silence is not "the patent is so strong nobody dared," but "the patent died of old age before the AIA trial regime opened," which is a materially better posture for a defendant.

I'll verify the assignment chain against live sources before building the record.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 5,270,773

Patent: Image producing device with security to prevent disclosure of sensitive documents
App. no. 07/982,357 · Filed 1992-11-27 · Issued 1993-12-14 · Assignee of record Xerox Corporation
Legal status (Google Patents, checked 2026-09-27): Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2012-11-27

Sourcing note before the findings: the records below are reconstructed from the USPTO-derived legal-events data published on the Google Patents page for this patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5270773/en), which reproduces Assignment Center reel/frame, conveyance type, assignor/assignee, execution date and recording date. The correspondent-of-record field (attorney/agent who filed each recording) was not exposed in any source I could retrieve for this patent — Google Patents legal events and Espacenet INPADOC both truncate the record before the correspondent block. I am therefore not reporting correspondent names for any link rather than guessing them. See signal 3 below.

---

Inventors

Pattern observations

• The assignment to Xerox was executed 1992-11-24, three days before the 1992-11-27 filing date — the ordinary pre-filing inventor-to-employer assignment for that era. It is not a late-recorded or back-dated instrument, and there is nothing anomalous about the execution date.
• No evidence of inventor departure within 12 months of filing exists in any source I retrieved, and I could not verify either inventor's later employment history. I am explicitly not inferring a departure pattern; the only employment fact I can ground is that both men assigned to Xerox at filing.
• The patent sits inside a same-assignee Xerox document-security family — its cited prior art includes US 5,034,770 (Job integrity and security apparatus, Xerox), US 5,045,881 (System for segregating purge sheets and continued printing, Xerox) and US 5,098,074 (Finishing apparatus, Xerox). That is the signature of an internally developed, operating-company product line, not an acquired or brokered asset.

---

Original assignee

Xerox Corporation (recorded owner name on the assignment: "XEROX CORPORATION, CONNECTICUT"; principal patent operations at Webster/Webster–Rochester, NY).

• Line of business: Electrophotographic copiers, printers and multifunction document systems — the core Xerox business.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, on the face of the specification. The disclosed security-login hierarchy is expressly tied to shipping Xerox platforms: the Electronic Auditron access control on the Xerox 5100, 5090 and 1090 copiers and the system-administrator password protection on the Xerox 4050 family printers (col. discussion of login systems 11). The disclosed purge/hierarchical-login behaviour is implemented on those machines, i.e. this is a product-embodying patent of the original assignee.
• Current status: Operating. Xerox remains an operating printing/document-technology company (Xerox Holdings Corporation as publicly traded parent, Xerox Corporation as the operating entity). Xerox did not enter Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 — its 2000–2002 liquidity crisis was resolved through out-of-court financings and an SEC settlement (see signal 6). I did not attempt to verify Xerox's ownership structure as of 2026 beyond noting the parent/subsidiary split.
• Ownership taken as of today: the record below shows the patent never left Xerox. Every post-issuance recording is either a lien granted by Xerox to its lenders or a release of that lien back to Xerox.

---

Assignment timeline

1992-11-24 (executed) / recorded 1992-11-27 — Reel 006468 / 0353

• Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST)
• Assignor: Sklut, Robert L.; Acquaviva, Thomas
• Assignee: Xerox Corporation
• Correspondent: not retrieved — the correspondent/attorney field is not exposed in the Google Patents or Espacenet renderings of this record; no recurrence can be assessed. (See signal 3.)
• Context: Original inventor-to-employer assignment at filing; not a transfer between operating entities.

2002-06-21 (executed) / recorded 2002-06-28 — Reel 013153 / 0001

• Conveyance: Security Interest (SECURITY INTEREST — see document for details)
• Assignor: Xerox Corporation
• Assignee: Bank One, NA, as Administrative Agent (Illinois)
• Correspondent: not retrieved (same limitation as above)
• Context: Securitization / collateral lien, not a sale. This is the recordation of the Patent Security Agreement executed in connection with Xerox's Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated June 2002 (the "New Credit Facility," ~$3.5 bn outstanding at 2002-12-31), under which Bank One, NA acted as Administrative Agent, Collateral Agent and LC Issuing Bank, with JPMorgan Chase Bank as Documentation Agent and Citibank, N.A. as Syndication Agent. The agreement grants the agent "a continuing security interest in … each Patent … owned by the Lien Grantor" and the proceeds of any infringement claim — title stayed with Xerox. (Agreement text is in Xerox's 2002 investor filing, https://investors.xerox.com/static-files/1e8b62e3-32a3-428b-83ae-d4c95485a34f.)

2003-06-25 (executed) / recorded 2003-10-31 — Reel 015134 / 0476

• Conveyance: Security Agreement (SECURITY AGREEMENT)
• Assignor: Xerox Corporation
• Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Collateral Agent (Texas)
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Lien confirmation / collateral-agent substitution under Xerox's secured credit facilities. Still a hypothecation, not an ownership transfer — Xerox remains patentee of record throughout. (JPMorgan Chase Bank is later described in the record as successor-in-interest to itself in both the administrative-agent and collateral-agent capacities — see the 2022 entry.)

2012-11-27 — no reel/frame; not an assignment. Anticipated expiration (20 years from the 1992-11-27 filing). Maintenance fees were current through the 12-year window (fee payment recorded 2005-04-11, year 12), so the patent ran to full term rather than lapsing — consistent with the owner valuing the asset. After this date the patent is unassertable as a matter of law.

2022-08-22 (executed) / recorded 2022-09-07 — Reel 066728 / 0193

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as successor-in-interest administrative agent and collateral agent to JPMorgan Chase Bank
• Assignee: Xerox Corporation
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Lien discharge — clean title restored to Xerox. Recorded roughly ten years after the patent expired, which indicates a bulk housekeeping release covering many Xerox patents rather than any transaction specific to this asset; the effect is to remove the 2002/2003 encumbrances from Xerox's patent records.

Net effect: four recorded events over 30 years, zero ownership transfers. Xerox Corporation was assignee in 1992 and is assignee today.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5270773
    1992 : Inventors assign to Xerox Corporation
    1993 : Patent issues to Xerox
    2002 : Security interest to Bank One as agent
    2003 : Security agreement to JPMorgan Chase
    2012 : Patent runs to full term and expires
    2022 : JPMorgan releases lien back to Xerox

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present.
There is no assignment out of Xerox to any entity at all, let alone one bearing an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix. The only post-1992 assignees are two banks (Bank One, NA at reel 013153/0001, recorded 2002-06-28; JPMorgan Chase Bank at reel 015134/0476, recorded 2003-10-31), and both appear solely as collateral agents taking security — not as owners. No single-purpose LLC appears anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present.
No assignee in the chain matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp or any Spangenberg-linked entity. Two adjacent data points worth recording so they are not mistaken for findings: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Xerox Corporation (E.D. Tex. 2:21-cv-00345, filed 2021-09-01) and Document Dynamics, LLC v. Xerox Corporation (D. Conn. 3:18-cv-00411, filed 2018-03-08) are PAE suits against Xerox, and Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Xerox Corporation (W.D.N.Y. 6:23-cv-06372, filed 2023-06-29) is another — but none of them names US 5,270,773, and MPV's asserted patents (6,810,149; 6,873,336; 7,006,890; 7,092,573; 7,092,966; 7,684,090) are unrelated later Xerox-origin assets. I found no litigation, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding naming US 5,270,773 in any search.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear, and I will not score it as present.
The signal requires naming the recurring attorney/firm. The correspondent-of-record for all four recordings was not retrievable from the sources available to me — Google Patents legal events and Espacenet INPADOC publish reel/frame, conveyance, parties, execution and recording dates but omit the correspondent block, and the Assignment Center UI itself is not accessible to me as a live query. I am recording this as unclear / unassessed rather than inferring a repeated filer. One counterparty recurrence does exist and is a benign one: JPMorgan Chase appears at reel 015134/0476 (2003) as collateral agent and again at reel 066728/0193 (2022) as releasor in the successor-in-interest capacity — a bank appearing on both a lien and its discharge, which is the expected pattern, not an asserter tell.

4. Cascading transfers — not present.
The rubric looks for multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs within 24 months. This chain contains no assignments at all after 1992; the two 2002/2003 records are 16 months apart but are liens granted by the same grantor to successive collateral agents, not transfers of title. No shared-principal or shared-address cluster exists.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present.
No suit naming this patent was located, so there is no litigation date to measure against. The last ownership-affecting record predates the patent's 2012-11-27 expiration, and no recording falls within six months of any proceeding involving this patent.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.
Xerox Corporation never filed Chapter 7 or Chapter 11. Its early-2000s distress — the downgrades, the $7 bn "Old Revolver" replacement and the June 2002 New Credit Facility that generated the Bank One lien at reel 013153/0001 — was resolved out of court; the 2002 Form 10-K describes the credit facility, asset sales and receivable securitizations, and the 2002 security interest is the closest analogue in this chain. Critically, that transaction encumbered the patents; it did not sell them. There is no court-supervised sale, no stalking-horse bidder, and no assignment to a purchaser.

7. Privateering — not present.
No transfer to an NPE assert-on-behalf intermediary, and no SEC, Patent Progress or EFF coverage of Xerox using an intermediary against competitors on this patent. The 2002 and 2003 recordings are lender-side liens, which by construction cannot be privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN. It terminates at the original operating assignee, Xerox Corporation, via a lien release (reel 066728/0193, recorded 2022-09-07).

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — and I want to be precise about why this label is being used, because it is not a records gap.

Justification: the Assignment Center record for US 5,270,773 is complete and unambiguous — the 1992-11-24 inventor-to-Xerox assignment at reel 006468/0353, the Bank One collateral lien at reel 013153/0001 (recorded 2002-06-28), the JPMorgan Chase security agreement at reel 015134/0476 (recorded 2003-10-31), and the 2022-08-22 release back to Xerox at reel 066728/0193. With zero ownership transfers in the 30 years since filing and expiry on 2012-11-27, there is no NPE chain to score: all eight signals above are "not present" (or, for the correspondent signal, unassessable on the data available), and no verdict in the NPE/assertion categories can be grounded. Under the rubric the only non-NPE ownership outcome available is Insufficient data, so I am applying it here in the sense of "chain contains only the original assignment plus encumbrances," while flagging that the substantive finding is stronger than that label implies — this patent never left its operating-company owner.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 5270773) · mirrored legal events at https://patents.google.com/patent/US5270773/en

I'll research US patent 5270773 and its cited prior art.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 5,270,773

Note on tool limits: I was able to retrieve the authoritative full text of US 5,270,773 (Google Patents / USPTO) and verify the content of the most substantive cited references (US 5,034,770; US 5,045,881; US 5,098,074; EP 0 241 273 A2 and, through EP 0 241 273's own background section, US 4,437,660, US 4,470,356 and Defensive Publication T102,102). I ran out of search budget before independently verifying US 4,414,579, US 4,561,765, US 4,655,582, JP 61-140435 A, JP 1(?) 64-31579 A and the Bacon et al. IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin item. For those I say so explicitly rather than guessing at their contents.

---

1. The patent at issue (the "target")

Because the priority date is 1992-11-27, every reference below (all published between 1975 and 1992-03-24) is available as prior art under at least § 102(a)/(b).

Do-not-confuse flag (strict-identifier rule): search engines also return JP 5270773 B2 ("トリガースイッチ" / trigger switch, Sakuma S-Tech, issued 2013-08-21). That is a different, unrelated patent. Only US 5,270,773 is the target.

The invention in one sentence: a copier/printer that senses leftover output from a previous job in the paper path/finisher and, based on the logged-in operator's access level, either performs an automatic purge or blocks operation until a higher-privileged operator purges the locked paper path — with violation logging on logout.

---

2. Statutory framework applied

A reference anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only if it discloses every element of a claim, arranged as in the claim. Where a reference discloses only some elements, it is properly § 103 (obviousness) art. I map each reference to the claims it could anticipate, and flag where the citation is really § 103/background. On this record, no single reference appears to fully anticipate independent claims 1, 12, 21, 22 or 23 — the cited art supplies the building blocks (access control, lockable bins, purge/sheet-presence sensing) but not the claimed hierarchical purge-inhibition combination. I detail the closest cases below.

---

3. Patent citations (11 references)

3.1 US 5,034,770 A — O'Connell, "Job integrity and security apparatus" (Xerox)

• Citation: US 5,034,770 A; filed 1990-08-30; issued 1991-07-23; Xerox Corp.
• Verified: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5034770 ; EP counterpart EP 0 473 434 (B1).
• Description: Electrophotographic printer for negotiable documents (checks). Operator logs in with a user identification number and password; a controller compares them to valid values in non-volatile memory and inhibits printing if invalid. Counters track sheets fed vs. delivered; the operator must enter the number of sheets removed during cycle-down. Operation is inhibited when counts do not reconcile, and a second error message requests a security identification number, which is compared to stored security codes — the machine stays inhibited until the entered code matches. Sheets remaining in the machine are purged to the sheet-receiving module on cycle-down.
• Potentially anticipatory of:
  • Claim 1 (and claim 12): the "means for determining access rights of a first operator" (login ID/password, access verification) and the "means for preventing operation … in response to … said access level" elements. Counting fed-vs-delivered sheets is arguably the "sensing" function.
  • Claim 7 / 17 (enabling login of a second operator when the first lacks authority): the security-identification-number prompt requires a second, higher-authority entry.
• Why NOT a clean § 102 hit: US 5,034,770's inhibit logic keys off sheet-count reconciliation, not "output from a previous job present"; and it does not recite the claimed "inhibiting clearing of said output … if said access level is less than a predetermined level." That hierarchical purge-inhibition is the point of novelty of US 5,270,773. Treat US 5,034,770 as the principal § 103 reference for claims 1/12 and a § 102 candidate only for narrowly read dependent concepts (second-operator re-authorization).

3.2 US 5,045,881 A — Kinder et al., "System for segregating purge sheets and continued printing" (Xerox)

• Citation: US 5,045,881 A; filed 1990-08-30; issued 1991-09-03; Xerox Corp.
• Verified: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5045881A](/patent/US5045881A)
• Description: Copier/printer with selectable output stations (finisher compiler trays 52 and an accessible top tray 48). Purge sheets (60P) are directed to a designated purge station (top tray 48). A sensor (101) detects presence/absence of sheets in the tray. If good copy sheets would be stacked on top of un-removed purge sheets in the same tray, printing is automatically stopped to prevent intermixing, and resumes automatically once the sensor indicates the tray has been cleared. Reduced printing delays otherwise.
• Potentially anticipatory of:
  • Claim 3 / 13 ("means for automatically purging said output in said paper path").
  • Claim 2 / 12 (sensing means — sensor 101 detects sheet presence).
  • Claim 5 / 15 (purging via the finishing device/compiler station).
  • Claim 10 / 20 (resuming operation once the tray/path is clear — here via tray sensor).
• Why NOT clean § 102: purge is triggered by job-integrity/collation faults, not by operator access level; there is no access-rights determination and no locked path. § 103 reference for the purge/sensing elements.

3.3 US 5,098,074 A — "Finishing apparatus" (Xerox)

• Citation: US 5,098,074 A; filed 1991-01-25; issued 1992-03-24; Xerox Corp.
• Verified: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5098074A](/patent/US5098074A)
• Description: Structural finisher: a movable partial compiling shelf extending over a stacking tray, staplers/binder positioned adjacent the compiler, registration/tamping, elevator stacking tray, slanted bins and transfer gate. No security, access-control, or purge-inhibition logic.
• Potentially anticipatory of:
  • Claim 5 / 15 — the "finishing device for finishing output" element (stapler/binder/compiler).
  • Claim 22 / 23 — arguably the "plurality of output bins" structure (slanted bins 12).
• Reality: A § 103/background reference only; it cannot anticipate any claim that includes the access-rights or purge-inhibition limitations.

3.4 EP 0 241 273 A2 — "Limited access reproducing machine bins" (Xerox)

• Citation: EP 0 241 273 A2; filed 1986-04-11; published 1987-10-14; Xerox Corp.
• Verified: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0241273A2/en (PDF at patentimages)
• Description: Copier with a sorting apparatus of plurality of bins, some lockable (32/34/36). The operator keys in the desired bin number (identification data) and, for a lockable bin, a combination; control logic positions gate 26 and energizes/de-energizes the lock (electromagnet or solenoid) so the selected bin defaults to locked and opens only with the combination. Critically: "when the operator selects a lockable bin, the printing machine control logic insures that the access doors to the interior of the printing machine are locked to prevent unauthorized access … in the event of a sheet jam," and an interlock disables the machine while a lockable-bin door is open. The specification expressly extends this to a laser printer (Xerox 9700/5700) driven by a computer (8010/6085) whose operator chooses a lockable bin from a remote console, so only a person with the need-to-know has access to confidential copies.
• Potentially anticipatory of:
  • Claim 22 / 23 — plurality of output bins; directing output to a specific bin determined by operator-entered identification; locked (secure) output bin. This is the single strongest structural/access precedent for claims 22–23.
  • Claim 1 / 12 — operator-entered identification functioning as an access determination.
  • Indirectly supports the "locked paper-path access panels" concept the target patent says is required "to be effective."
• Why NOT clean § 102: no sensing of output from a previous job, no purge, and no access-level-dependent inhibition of clearing.

3.5 US 4,470,356 A — "Word processor-controlled printer output bin lock box" (Datapoint)

• Citation: US 4,470,356 A; filed 1982-02-09; issued 1984-09-11; Datapoint Corp.
• Verified indirectly: described in the EP 0 241 273 A2 background (as "US-A-4 470 356"): a computer controls sheet feed to selectively direct sheets from a printer to a predetermined output bin; a lock box can be inserted/removed from the output bins and can only be opened by an individual having a key or appropriate access code.
• Potentially anticipatory of:
  • Claim 22 / 23 — plurality of bins + directing output to a selected bin + secure receptacle.
  • Claim 4 / 14 — a lock box is the functional analogue of the claimed "waste box" as a secure purge destination.
• Reality: § 102 candidate only for the bin/lock-box structural concepts; it lacks access-rights sensing of previous-job output.

3.6 US 4,437,660 A — "Word processor-controlled printer output scanner mechanism" (Datapoint)

• Citation: US 4,437,660 A; filed 1981-11-16; issued 1984-03-20; Datapoint Corp.
• Verified indirectly: per EP 0 241 273 A2 background: it scans a plurality of output bins to determine the availability of a bin for receiving documents and the presence of a lock box therein; when a lock box is inserted, the scanner detects which bin contains it and signals where the documents should be directed.
• Potentially anticipatory of:
  • Claim 22 / 23 — sensing at bins and directing output to a specific bin.
  • Claim 1 / 12 — a "sensing means" element (bin/box detection).
• Reality: § 103/background; no access-level or previous-job-purge logic.

3.7 US 4,414,579 A — "Information transmitting and receiving station utilizing a copier-printer" (IBM)

• Citation: US 4,414,579 A; filed 1979-12-28; issued 1983-11-08; International Business Machines Corp.
• Verification status: Contents not independently verified in this session. Based on the title/front-page record only, it concerns a combined copier-printer information transmit/receive station.
• Potential relevance: possibly to claim 11 / 21 (output that is electronic image output stored in the device) and to the general concept of a shared, multi-user copier/printer station underlying claim 1. I cannot responsibly assert § 102 anticipation for any claims without inspecting the reference. Treat as unverified/§ 103 background.

3.8 US 4,561,765 A — "Image forming apparatus" (Canon)

• Citation: US 4,561,765 A; filed 1982-02-01; issued 1985-12-31; Canon K.K.
• Verification status: Contents not independently verified here. General "image forming apparatus" art; likely cited for copier architecture (paper path, output).
• Potential relevance: background only; no apparent § 102 relevance to any of claims 1–23 absent inspection.

3.9 US 4,655,582 A — "Automatic duplex electrophotographic copying machine" (Sharp)

• Citation: US 4,655,582 A; filed 1984-12-27; issued 1987-04-07; Sharp K.K.
• Verification status: Contents not independently verified here. As an automatic duplex machine, it discloses the intermediate/duplex receiver tray that the target patent identifies as a place where "leftover" output from a previous job accumulates.
• Potentially anticipatory of: the paper-path/intermediate-tray environment recited in claims 2 and 12 (background), not the security logic. § 103/background.

3.10 JP 61-140435 A — "Automatic document feed device for copy machine" (Sharp)

• Citation: JP 61-140435 A; filed 1984-12-10; published 1986-06-27; Sharp Corp.
• Verification status: Contents not independently verified here. Document-feeder art.
• Relevance: background to job setup at the platen/feeder (cf. the latch/record-id-on-first-copy concept in T102,102). No apparent § 102 relevance to claims 1–23.

3.11 JP 64-31579 A — "Method for adjusting backbar in spot welding" (Mazda Motor)

• Citation: JP 64-31579 A (as printed "JPS6431579A"); filed 1987-07-28; published 1989-02-01; Mazda Motor.
• Observation (do-not-auto-correct): The title as recorded — "Method for adjusting backbar in spot welding" — is facially unrelated to document security or image-producing devices. I report it literally as it appears in the US 5,270,773 citation record; it appears to be an erroneous or anomalous citation, and I can identify no claim of US 5,270,773 that it could anticipate. It may be a data artifact in the front-page citation list.

---

4. Non-Patent Citations

The record is headed "Non-Patent Citations (4)" but contains two distinct works, each duplicated:

4.1 Bacon et al., IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 18, No. 6, Nov. 1975, pp. 1747–1748

• Citation: Bacon et al., IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol. 18, No. 6 (Nov. 1975), pp. 1747–1748.
• Verification status: Contents not independently verified here. Given its vintage (1975) and the company, it is likely job-accounting/access-control or copier output-handling art.
• Potential relevance: possible § 102(b)/§ 103 background for the access/Auditron-style login environment recited in claims 1/12, but I cannot assert any specific claim anticipation.

4.2 Bolle et al., "Access Controlled Copier," U.S. Defensive Publication No. T102,102 (Aug. 3, 1982)

• Citation: Bolle et al., "Access Controlled Copier," U.S. Defensive Publication No. T102,102, published Aug. 3, 1982 (a printed publication for § 102(b) purposes).
• Verified indirectly: described in the EP 0 241 273 A2 background: bins at the copier output are locked to the user by means of a badge reader; the user enters identification data to enable the copier; the document platen cover is latched; user identification data is recorded on the first copy, which is delivered to the locked bin; the selected number of copies then go to user-accessible bins; the platen cover is thereafter unlatched to let the user recover the original.
• Potentially anticipatory of:
  • Claim 1 / 12 — "means for determining access rights of a first operator" (badge/ID entry enabling the machine).
  • Claim 22 / 23 — plurality of bins, directing output based on operator identification, and a locked (secure) bin accessible only to authorized operators.
  • Arguably claim 6 / 16 in a broad sense — operator identification is recorded in the machine's operation (though T102,102 records the ID on the copy, not on a logged-off violation, so this element is not squarely met).
• Assessment: Along with EP 0 241 273 A2, this is the strongest § 102-style teaching of access-controlled, lockable copier output bins — but it does not disclose sensing leftover output from a previous job, nor hierarchical inhibition of clearing.

---

5. Claim-by-claim anticipation summary

Overall conclusion: The prior art cited against US 5,270,773 establishes, in combination, (a) password/badge-based operator access control on copiers/printers (US 5,034,770; T102,102), (b) selectively locked, user-assigned output bins (EP 0 241 273 A2; US 4,470,356; US 4,437,660; T102,102), and (c) automatic purging/segregation of waste sheets with presence sensing and print inhibit/resume (US 5,045,881; US 5,098,074). None of the eleven patent references or the two non-patent publications appears, on its face, to disclose the combination that is the asserted point of novelty of the target patent — namely, sensing output from a previous job and, conditioned on the current operator's access level, either purging it or inhibiting its clearing/blocking operation pending a higher-privileged operator (independent claims 1, 12, 21, 22, 23). On this record the citations are best characterized as § 102 art for isolated structural/functional elements of dependent claims (especially 2–6, 10, 13–16, 20, 22, 23) and § 103 art for the independent claims, not as standalone anticipations.

---

6. Verification caveats (stated explicitly, not fabricated)

• Independently inspected in this session: US 5,270,773; US 5,034,770; US 5,045,881; US 5,098,074; EP 0 241 273 A2 (and, through it, US 4,437,660, US 4,470,356 and T102,102).
• Not independently inspected: US 4,414,579; US 4,561,765; US 4,655,582; JP 61-140435 A; JP 64-31579 A; Bacon et al. IBM TDB. Statements about these are limited to their recorded bibliographic data and, where noted, a third reference's characterization; I did not confirm their technical disclosures, and no § 102 conclusion should be relied upon for them without inspection.
• Record anomaly: the citation list is headed "Non-Patent Citations (4)" yet contains only two distinct works, each listed twice (once with a hyphen in the page range, once without). Reported as-is.
• Record anomaly: JP 64-31579 A is a spot-welding reference with no apparent relation to image-producing-device security; reported literally, not auto-corrected.

Key URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5270773A ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US5034770 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US5045881A/en ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US5098074A ; https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0241273A2/en ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/5270773.html

I'll verify the examiner-cited references before building the § 103 combinations, since only their titles and dates appear on the page.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — US 5,270,773

Patent: US 5,270,773 A, "Image producing device with security to prevent disclosure of sensitive documents" (Xerox Corp.; Sklut & Acquaviva; filed 1992‑11‑27; issued 1993‑12‑14).
Statutory basis: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as construed per Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2141–2144.04.

1. Scope, caveats, and level of ordinary skill

Prior art date: 1992‑11‑27. All eleven patent citations and both non‑patent citations listed on the face of the patent predate it and qualify as prior art (§ 102(b)/(e) and pre‑AIA § 102(a)).

Verification note (important). The page supplies only titles/dates for the cited references. I retrieved and read the disclosure of US 5,034,770, US 5,045,881, US 4,437,660, US 4,470,356, EP 0 241 273 A2 and Defensive Publication T102,102, and confirmed the substance quoted below. I did not retrieve the text of US 5,098,074, US 4,561,765, US 4,655,582, US 4,414,579, JPS 61‑140435 A, JPS 64‑31579 A, or the Bacon IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin note; for those I rely on the bibliographic data on the patent and flag where that reliance matters. I make no assertion about the contents of the Bacon TDB item (vol. 18, No. 6, Nov. 1975, pp. 1747–48) — I could not verify it, so no rejection below rests on it.

Level of ordinary skill. A POSA here is a designer of electrophotographic copier/printer control systems with ~2–3 years' experience, familiar with (i) password/auditron access‑control subsystems, (ii) jam‑purge and cycle‑out routines for paper paths, intermediate duplex trays and finishers, and (iii) sorter/finisher bin architecture. The specification itself confirms this baseline by conceding that auditron password protection (Xerox 5100/5090/1090), printer print‑buffer password protection (Xerox 4050 family), and automatic purge of leftover output "as currently implemented in programs such as the XEROX 5100" were all routine. Those are applicant admissions usable as evidence of the scope of the prior art and the skill level.

Because every "means for…" element in claims 1, 22 and 23 is defined only by function, the corresponding structure is a programmed microprocessor‑based controller (specification's machine control system 20 / controllers 5–6, 100, 72 of the cited references). Programming a known controller to execute a claimed logic flow is not itself a patentable distinction; the question is whether the logic is new.

2. Claim digest and prior‑art mapping

No single reference anticipates. US 5,045,881 has no access‑right gating; US 5,034,770 has no purge/prior‑job context (its inhibit is triggered by a sheet‑count mismatch after cycle‑down); EP 0 241 273 A2 and T102,102 have no previous‑job purge sensing. This is therefore a § 103 case, and the whole question is motivation to combine.

3. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Claims 1, 12, 21: US 5,034,770 + US 5,045,881 + T102,102 (or EP 0 241 273 A2)

Rationale (MPEP 2143(A), (B), (D), (G)). US 5,034,770 supplies (a) and (d): a login‑based access determination against stored codes in non‑volatile memory, machine‑operation inhibit, and — decisively — a second, higher‑authority security code that must be entered before the inhibit will be released. This is functionally the claimed "inhibiting clearing … if said access level is less than a predetermined level," merely triggered by a count discrepancy instead of by waste output. US 5,045,881 supplies (b) and (c): a sensor in an output location that detects sheets from an earlier operation and automatically stops the printing operation until they are removed. T102,102 and EP 0 241 273 A2 supply the confidential‑output context and the association of authorization level to a shared machine's output.

Motivation. Both O'Connell and Kinder are Xerox patents in the same machine family and the same problem space the specification identifies: O'Connell is expressly titled and described as "job integrity and security," and its background states that "there are no mechanisms providing a second level of security to prevent operator theft or error." Kinder addresses what to do with leftover "purge sheets" in a shared output tray. A POSA seeking to protect purge sheets from unauthorized eyes has an obvious reason to gate Kinder's automatic purge/interrupt logic on O'Connell's already‑implemented hierarchy of validated access codes, producing no more than the predictable result of each reference performing its own known function (KSR). Also, T102,102 (1982) and EP 0 241 273 A2 (1987) show that access‑controlled copier output was a settled field a decade before the filing date, so the combination is not the product of hindsight.

Ground 2 — Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 4: add US 4,470,356 (and US 4,437,660)

Claim 3's "automatically purging" step is admitted prior art: the specification states that such machines "typically possess facilities to automatically clear themselves of or 'purge' unusable output," a purge routine "as currently implemented in programs such as the XEROX 5100." Claim 4's "waste box" reads directly on US 4,470,356's lockbox, whose stated purpose is confining printed documents from a centrally located printer to authorized personnel, and on US 4,437,660, which identifies a lockbox by coded scanning and routes documents into it. Claim 2's "paper path" limitation is met by the duplex/intermediate trays of US 4,561,765 and US 4,655,582 (titles verified only; both are duplex/two‑sided copy machines in the same art). Rationale: combination of known elements with predictable results; mere substitution of a locked receptacle for a purge tray.

Ground 3 — Claim 5 / 15: add US 5,098,074 (finishing apparatus)

Directing purge output to a finisher is disclosed by the "Finishing apparatus" reference and is inherent in applicant's own paper path 14 including finishing device 12. Rationale (C)/(D): using a known purge destination for a known purpose.

Note for the patentee: the specification argues that purging to the operator's own final destination "contradicts existing machine philosophy." That is a statement of prior‑art direction, and an argument for nonobviousness should be framed as teaching away. Under KSR, a preference or existing practice is not a teaching away absent a criticality or express criticism showing the combination would not work; the applicant's statement that it "helps eliminate the leaving of waste output" actually evidences that the combination was recognized as workable and beneficial. This claim is the weakest ground for a teaching‑away defense.

Ground 4 — Claims 6, 16: record password on logoff with output present

US 5,034,770 discloses producing "a report of printing parameters after each completed job" (sheets fed, delivered, removed) and generating an error message that a "security problem has been detected." Bolle T102,102 records user identification data on output. Storing an audit record of the operator identity when the operator logs out with waste remaining is the routine combination of an existing audit‑reporting function with an existing access‑code record. Where the only difference a limitation makes is in the informational content recorded, the printed‑matter/non‑functional‑information doctrine applies (MPEP 2144.04) and the limitation carries little or no patentable weight. Rationale: (A) and (C); the expected result (a compliance log) is precisely what the patent describes at step 503.

Ground 5 — Claims 7–10, 17–20: second‑operator hierarchy

US 5,034,770 teaches requesting a second, higher "security identification number" and continuing to inhibit until it matches a stored code — one‑to‑one with claims 18/19's "enabling login of a second operator" and "automatically purging … if an access level of said second operator is higher." EP 0 241 273 A2 teaches multiple operators sharing lockable bins with individual combinations / pre‑assigned codes. Claim 9/19 ("prevents operation while both the first and second operators are logged in") is the only limitation with no direct counterpart I could verify; the examiner's best support is rationale (G) plus the reference's own express purpose — the specification states the reason itself, "to ensure that the access rights with purge privileges is not mistakenly left active on the machine." That framing (avoiding a stale privileged session) is a recognized design incentive, so I would expect this to be obvious but expect the patentee to contest it as a specific discovery.

Ground 6 — Claims 11, 21: electronic image output

US 4,414,579 (IBM, "Information transmitting and receiving station utilizing a copier‑printer") is the listed reference showing the copier/printer convergence in which images exist as electronic data. Combined with the applicant's admission that the Xerox 4050 print buffer is password‑protected against access until administrator authorization, storing/purging electronic images under the same access‑level regime is an obvious extension of the same security principle to the digital domain — a known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement. (Xerox's own EP 0 818 724 B1, "Security system for electronic printing systems," priority 1990‑09‑28, corroborates that electronic printer security was prior art, but it is not in the prior‑art section of the page and I would use it only as corroboration unless separately qualified.)

Ground 7 — Claims 22, 23: output bins, personal bin, purge to an additional bin

This is the strongest ground. US 4,437,660 discloses scanning a plurality of bins, detecting which bin holds a lockbox, decoding the lockbox identity from a coded reflective strip, and directing documents to that specific coded lockbox — which reads on "directing said output … to a specific one of said plurality of output bins based on said identification information." T102,102 and EP 0 241 273 A2 supply operator‑specific locked bins ("one or more collator/sorter bins at a copier output are locked to the user by means of a badge reader"), and US 5,045,881 supplies auto‑purge to a designated station 48 separate from the normal finisher compiler 52. US 4,470,356 supplies the physically separate secure receptacle. The combination is the straightforward aggregation of four references addressing the identical problem — preventing unauthorized reading of hard copy at a shared machine — with each reference doing exactly what it was designed to do.

4. Secondary considerations

The specification offers no comparative data, no unexpected‑results evidence, no skepticism, no commercial‑success nexus, and no licensing evidence. To the contrary, the "Background" section concedes that every functional building block (auditron password login, automatic purge, cycle‑out purge, multiple output destinations) was known and commercially deployed, and the discussion of the invention repeatedly describes the advance as applying existing access‑rights infrastructure in a new place in the control flow. On the present record, secondary considerations do not outweigh the strong prima facie case.

5. Where the patentee can legitimately push back

1. The core limitation in every independent claim — "inhibiting clearing" as a consequence of access level — is not squarely disclosed as a security measure. In US 5,034,770 the inhibit is released by a security number; in US 5,045,881 the interrupt is released by physical removal of sheets. The patentee can argue no reference suggests that the identity/authority of the person clearing the paper path is the gating variable. Expect this to be the crux of appeal, and expect the examiner to answer it with US 5,034,770's security‑ID clearance in view of the shared‑machine confidentiality rationale.
2. JPS 64‑31579 A is listed on this page with the title "Method for adjusting backbar in spot welding" and assignee "Mazda Motor." Taken literally, that reference is non‑analogous art and is unusable in a § 103 combination. (Note also the facial inconsistency: the '773 front page lists "JP0131579, May 1989, 355/201," while the Google record gives JPS 64‑31579 A a 1987‑07‑28 priority and 1989‑02‑01 publication. I flag the discrepancy rather than reconcile it.) The rejection must stand without it.
3. Bacon et al., IBM TDB (1975) — unverified; do not rely on it.
4. US 5,098,074 — bibliographic data only; verify its disclosure of purge‑to‑finisher before relying on Ground 3.

6. Bottom line

On the references cited on the patent, all twenty‑three claims are vulnerable under § 103, with the following relative strength:

• Strong: claims 1, 12, 21 (US 5,034,770 + US 5,045,881 + T102,102/EP 0 241 273 A2); claims 22, 23 (US 4,437,660 + US 4,470,356 + US 5,045,881 + T102,102); claims 2–4, 13, 14.
• Moderate: claims 6, 16 (audit‑report + recordation); claims 7, 8, 17, 18 (second‑operator hierarchy); claims 11, 21 (electronic image); claim 5/15 (subject to the teaching‑away rebuttal, which under KSR is weak).
• Weakest (but still arguable): claims 9, 19, 10, 20 — the inhibit‑while‑both‑operators‑logged‑in and resume‑on‑logoff‑and‑clear‑path logic, supported mainly by design‑incentive reasoning and the specification's own stated rationale.

The strongest combination overall is US 5,034,770 (O'Connell) as primary reference, combined with US 5,045,881 (Kinder), because the two together supply every element of claim 1: validated access levels, a machine‑operation inhibit conditioned on machine state, and a security‑code‑gated release of that inhibit — the last being the closest prior‑art analogue to "inhibiting clearing … if said access level is less than a predetermined level."